SUPREME COURT

Greymouth Evening Star, 11 June 1932, Page 7

SUPREME COURT

WESTLAND SITTINGS DIVORCE APPLICATIONS Before Mr. Justice Adams, at the Greymouth Supreme Court yesterday, Gregory O’Neill (Waiuta) petitioned for a divorce against Elizabeth O’Neill, on the grounds of adultery, Peter Lamb Lyon being cited as co-respondent. Mr. J. W. Hannan, for petitioner,

stated that the affidavit of service had been made before a Justice of the Peace, and taken by a Sheriff’s officer in Scotland, where the wife now resided. rhe only othei- evidence put in, in support of service was a receipt signed by respondent, which petitioner could recognise as the handwriting of his wife. This receipt was an acknowledgement of £5 sent to her, to enable her to seek advice should she desire to defend the action. This amount had been paid to her by the Sheriff’s officer. His Honor: Can anyone else identify the signature? Counsel: Ido not think so. There is also respondent’s signature on another document, which can be identified as being similar. His Honor: It looks like coming down to the one witness. The wife has been served in Scotland. Has she had competent guidance? Counsel: She has been paid the ' money, and instructed by the Sheriff’s ' officer in regard to the matter. His Honor stated that he would ; first hear the evidence of petitioner, ’ but counsel stated that such evidence 1 was not available. Owing to the ' short notice given that the case would 1 come on, time had been insufficient to 1 allow the petitioner to attend from ‘ Waiuta. 1

The petitioner was thereupon stood down until this morning. Evidence was given, this morning, by petitioner. A decree nisi was granted, to be made absolute after three months.

PHILLIPS v. PHILLIPS. At the Supreme Court, this morning, before Mr Justice Adams, Florence Mary Ellen Phillips (Mr, J. A. Murdoch), of Hari Hari, made application for a dissolution of her marriage with Alfred James Phillips, of Hokitika, on the grounds of three years’ separation. The parties were married on May 31, 1905. The application was not defended. The Judge granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute within three months, and granted petitioner custody pf two children. ' No application was made for costs. HOLMES V. HOLMES. James Harold Holmes (Greymouth) petitioned for divorce from Muriel Hilda Holmes, now of Auckland, on the grounds of adultery, Edward Porter being cited as co-respondent. Mr. T. F. Brosnan appeared for petitioner, the petition being undefended. Evidence was given by Robert Duggan, Assistant-Clerk of the Court, Greymouth, as to a statement which had been furnished by respondent, in which she admitted adultery, and made other admissions. These latter were the subject of legal argument between the Judge and counsel, and it was decided that counsel furnish authorities in support of his contention that the evidence was admissable. The case was adjourned, after petitioner had given evidence, until to-day.

When the court resumed this morning His Honor granted a decree nisi, to be made absolute after three months. Costs were allowed, according to scale.

APPEAL IN CHAMBERS. In Chambers, this morning before Mr Justice Adams there was heard a case on appeal from the decision of the Magistrate, at Greymouth given on March 15, 1932, in the case Patrick McCormick (appellant) v. James Steel (respondent). The claim was originally for the sum of £lB2 for use and occupation of Section 338., Greymouth Native Reserve from March 1, 1924 to March 1, 1931. At the hearing in the Magistrate’s Court the period over which rent was claimed was reduced to a claiih from July 19, 1926 to the termination of the defendant’s occupation. The appellant alleged that the Magistrate was wrong in giving judgment for defendant, and in deciding there was no agreement expressed or implied on the part of respondent to pay rent. Appellant also contended that the Magistrate erroneously decided that the respondent was not liable for any rent in respect to premises either 'as tenant or otherwise.

The Magistrate’s decision was before the Judge, and the pleadings were all reduced to writing, together with the evidence by the witnesses in the case, so no further evidence was taken in the Supreme Court. The argument continued practically all the morning, Mr W. P. McCarthy appearing for appellant, and Mr J. A. Murdoch for the respondent. At the conclusion his Honor intimated that he would reserve judgment in the meantime, but might deliver an oral judgment in the appeal before leaving Greymouth.